Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady has described how important the role of the magistrates courts will be and the importance of whole-system reform. The Government are not looking to tweak one aspect—to tweak what goes on in the magistrates court or the Crown court. One of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link and the fact that it delivers local justice, so we will look at that carefully, but there is no getting away from it: the scale of the problem, and what Sir Brian’s report tells us, means that we need whole-system reform of the criminal justice system, from beginning to end.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the recognition of the importance of magistrates courts. Sadly, Harlow magistrates court was closed by the previous Government—as was Chorley magistrates court, of course. I recently spoke to a police officer in my constituency who has been a police officer for three years. He is being asked to gather evidence to go to court for crimes committed before he was even a police officer. Is it any wonder that victims have lost confidence in the system? This Government need to ensure that we have fundamental reforms to this process to ensure that people in my constituency get the justice they deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

And we can reopen the courts in Chorley—they are available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

The Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. We are investing more than the Conservatives ever did, and funding a record allocation of Crown court sitting days—110,000 days this year, which is 4,000 more than during the last Government—but we must reform, too. Sir Brian Leveson will soon present his recommendations for delivering once-in-a-generation reform and swifter justice for victims.

[Chris Vince]

In Essex, 20% of cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged because victims are dropping out and withdrawing their support. With some waiting years for their case to get through the courts, is it any wonder that they give up on justice? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need radical action now to stop the backlog from getting any bigger in places like my constituency of Harlow?

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. Secure 16 to 19 academies have already been established in legislation, with the first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opening in Kent last year. The Bill will make further amendments to the Academies Act 2010 for the purpose of providing different requirements for securing 16 to 19 academies.

In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment focused on the delivery of education and offering children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their eventual release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environment in which we detain and provide care for those children is as necessary now as it was then.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under the Academies Act 2010, and secure children’s homes under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. As work has continued, and the first secure school, Oasis Restore, is now open, the Bill is needed to make further amendments to the 2010 Act in relation to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement for a secure school into which they have entered. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. The changes will provide far better and more integrated services. With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses.

Clause 1 contains three main measures. First, the Bill will amend section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period of funding under a funding agreement from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year termination period will enable Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility, should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment.

Secondly, the Bill will disapply section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. That will remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools. The Bill would therefore disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay.

Thirdly, the Bill will amend section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. I recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. Clause 1 will amend section 10 to require that the provider consults appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill will help to ensure that these institutions are better integrated with local services? I am thinking particularly about my hon. Friend’s opening remarks about the importance of ensuring that the young people who go to these institutions are better integrated into the community once they leave.

[Emma Foody]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the success of these schools is absolutely dependent on them being properly integrated with local services, as he rightly says.

Clause 2 establishes that the Bill will extend to England and Wales, but it will apply only to England, given that the academy system has not been adopted in Wales. Clause 2 also establishes that the Bill’s provisions will come into force two months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, clause 2 establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referenced as the “Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2025”. I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the cyber-security and resilience Bill will be introduced in this Session. The focus of that Bill is to improve the cyber-defences of this country by bolstering regulator support and the regulatory framework and setting out how our national security agencies can provide a strengthened and emboldened response to just such attacks. It seems to me that that Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle for delivering what I think we all wish to see, which is a more robust defence of our cyber-systems.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. What shocks me most about this attack is that it is an attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. What can be done by residents in Harlow who are concerned that their data has been taken by these criminals, and how can they get legal aid if they need it?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. People can do two things: first, be in touch with their legal aid provider, because that will be the source of the data sharing and would have been the source of the application for legal aid. Secondly, if they are concerned that their data may have been affected, they can get in touch directly with the Legal Aid Agency. Legal aid providers have been informed of how those who need to apply for legal aid can continue to do so, because it is vital that we do not allow the justice system to grind to a halt and that those who need emergency legal aid can continue to access it. We have put in place business contingency plans to ensure that no one in this country, whether in Harlow or anywhere else, will be prevented from—or delayed in—accessing legal aid while we work to resolve this issue.

Protection of Prison Staff

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

What I do agree with is that punishment and public protection are two very important reasons why people go to prison. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I cannot comment on a live police investigation, and my hon. Friend will understand the reasons why.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and, like everybody in this House, my thoughts are with the officer who was attacked. From speaking to friends of mine who have worked in the Prison Service over the last couple of years, it is clear that this is not a new problem, and it is vital that we tackle it. Will the Minister echo his commitment to ensure that everyone, whether they are a retail worker in Harlow or a prison officer in Belmarsh, is safe at work?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I absolutely give that commitment: this Government will do all we can to make sure that people are as safe as possible when they go to work. Nobody should suffer what happened to these very brave, wonderful prison officers doing their duty; that should not happen to anybody when they go to work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue from her constituency. We know that more needs to be done in this area, and that is why this Government have started to roll out our domestic abuse protection orders to help victims of domestic abuse in selected areas. We are seeing how that goes. We are developing policy in this area to protect victims, and women and girls in particular. I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss what more we can do.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having spoken to Essex police and other professionals, and having worked for a homeless charity myself, I know that often the hardest part for victims of domestic violence is making the decision to leave what is sometimes the family home. What work has the Minister done with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Tackling violence against women and girls is not just a Ministry of Justice problem to fix, but a problem for every Government Department to fix. That is why I have met with my counterparts across the Departments, including in MHCLG, to discuss housing needs. We will be publishing our violence against women and girls strategy later this year, and I look forward to discussing it with him in due course.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. It is for Parliament to set the overall sentencing framework, but every single judge has to see the case in front of them and make their own decisions. As I made very clear in my statement, I will always defend the independence of our judiciary; they do vital work and are a crucial part of the separation of powers. Everything that I have sought to do, given this recent episode, has been to respect that separation of powers and assert what we properly consider to be the realm of policy, politicians and Parliament, and what is the realm of the judges.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement. Does she agree that we should all hold closely the ideal of equality before the law, and that the biggest cause of two-tier justice was the mess that the Conservative party made of our Probation Service?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This is the third consecutive week in which we have discussed this in the House. We discussed it in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, we discussed it at Justice questions last week, and we are discussing it again today.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It has already been mentioned that pre-sentencing reports are important for judges. However, does he agree that pre-sentencing reports should be available for all offenders, and that their availability should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith? Further to what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, we also had a two-tier probation system under the last Government.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Member will know that it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to comment on individual judgments. On some of the decisions in the immigration chamber, which have been the subject of some public discussion, he will know that the Prime Minister has been very clear that where a policy or a legal change is required, it is for the Government to bring forward those changes and ultimately for the House to vote on them. In that respect, the Home Secretary is considering further changes to the law. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned deportations, and let me remind him that, under this Government, deportations of foreign national offenders from our prisons are up by 23%.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, like Chorley’s magistrates court, Harlow’s sadly closed in 2019. I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement, but does she agree that we need radical reforms to start driving down the Crown court backlog, including the use of magistrates courts—as I say, sadly, we cannot use Harlow’s at the moment—so that we can get through cases more quickly and give victims the justice they require?

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Chris Vince Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

On account of the Bill’s 18 clauses being grouped together, I will speak to them in numerical order. I begin with clause 1, which contains one of the Bill’s key reforms: provision for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This is important because different governing laws may give different answers to important questions such as who is party to the agreement and whether the type of dispute is capable of being arbitrated.

Clause 1 will determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement by replacing the common law approach established in Enka v. Chubb with a new statutory rule. The law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties. Otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. By way of simple illustration, if someone arbitrates in London, by default the applicable law would be English law.

Whereas the common law approach is complex and uncertain, the new approach in clause 1 is simple and predictable. It reduces the prospect of satellite litigation to determine governing law, which can be slow and costly. Where the arbitration takes place in London, as is the choice in so many international arbitrations, by default the arbitration will be fully supported by English law.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to add that an express choice of law to govern the main contract rather than the arbitration agreement is not enough. Clause 1 will not apply where the agreement is derived from standing offers of arbitration contained in treaties or foreign domestic legislation, as with investor-state arbitration, for example, as these are better underpinned by international law and foreign domestic law respectively.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provision in relation to the arbitral tribunal. Clause 2 requires an arbitrator to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. It will apply prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, when they are being approached with a view to appointment. It will be a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment. This codifies the duty of disclosure recognised by the Supreme Court in its decision in Halliburton v. Chubb and will enhance trust in arbitration.

Clauses 3 and 4 will reassure arbitrators that they can take the right decisions in their proceedings without fear of reprisal from a disappointed party. Clause 3 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.

Clauses 5 and 6 both concern jurisdiction. There are two ways for a party to question the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. One way is to wait until the tribunal has issued a ruling and then challenge that ruling under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows a challenge to an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The other is is by invoking section 32 of that Act, which allows the court to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as a preliminary point.

Clause 5 makes clear that if the tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction, any challenge must be brought through section 67. Clause 6 provides that where the arbitral tribunal or court rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal can nevertheless award the costs of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. This will ensure that if a party wrongly starts arbitration, they can still be held responsible for the wasted costs incurred.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with arbitral proceedings and the powers of the court. Clause 7 will confer an express power on arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis—that is, adopting an expedited procedure—to dispose of an issue where an arbitrating party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue. This aligns with the summary judgments available in court proceedings and will deliver more efficient arbitrations. This power can be exercised on application by any of the parties. The procedure to be adopted is not prescribed. It will instead be a matter for the arbitrator to decide on a case by case basis after consulting with the arbitrating parties.

Clause 8 concerns emergency arbitrators. Arbitral rules sometimes provide a regime for the appointment of emergency arbitrators on an interim basis. Such arbitrators can make orders on urgent matters, such as the preservation of evidence, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators were not commonplace when the 1996 Act was drafted, so it is important that we now expressly empower them. Clause 8 will provide that failing to comply with an order made by the emergency arbitrator will have the same consequences as those for a normal arbitrator.

Clause 9 concerns interim court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings. Under section 44 of the 1996 Act, the court can make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on certain matters—for example, the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, sales of goods and interim injunctions. Clause 9 will amend section 44 to make it clear that such court orders are also available against third parties. For example, the court will be able to make an order preserving assets against a third party such as a bank. This will mirror the position in court proceedings.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 concern powers of the court in relation to an arbitral award. An arbitral tribunal can issue an award on whether it has jurisdiction, and it can issue an award on the merits of the dispute. Either type of award can be challenged under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Clause 10 will equip the courts with the full suite of remedies for section 67 challenges. When the court has a jurisdiction challenge in front of it, it will have two new options: to declare the arbitral award to be of no effect, or to return the matter to the arbitral tribunal for consideration so that a revised award can be made. These remedies already exist for other challenges, for serious irregularities and for appeals on points of law, so this provision fixes something of an inconsistency in the 1996 Act.

Clause 11 also amends section 67 of the 1996 Act. It will confer a power for rules of court to provide that, unless necessary in the interests of justice, there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence put before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal. The amendments made to section 67 by clause 11 also provide that evidence taken by an arbitral tribunal should not be reheard by the court. This will avoid these challenges from becoming full re-hearings, departing from the precedent set in the case of Dallah v. Pakistan. Re-hearings can involve duplication of time and costs, and it can be unfair to allow a party who lost before the tribunal a complete rerun.

Clause 12 amends section 70 of the 1996 Act, which governs how arbitral awards can be challenged before the courts. It will clarify that the 28-day time limit for such a challenge will start running only after any arbitral process of appeal or correction has concluded.

Clause 13 concerns appeals from High Court decisions and corrects a rare drafting error in the 1996 Act. Section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 were amended by the 1996 Act. When read at face value, those sections currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear from what my hon. Friend is saying that the Bill is welcomed by the legal sector. What engagement has he had with the legal sector and relevant stakeholders?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There has been massive engagement with parties interested in this Bill. The Bill began in the last Parliament, to which I am grateful for the work already done. It began in the Lords, who engaged fully with parties at that stage. The Lords have had to restart the Bill in the new Parliament, so they have had two bites at the cherry, and all the feedback from stakeholders has been very positive. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that out in this debate.